A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The present invention relates to the field of web switches. More particularly, the present invention relates to transaction rate limiting to protect ports on a web switch.
Web switches provide traffic management to computer networks. The traffic management extends to packets received both from an outside network, such as the Internet, and from an internal network. Web switches, however, are susceptible to denial of service attacks. In a denial of service attack, a network is assaulted with a flood of requests such that regular traffic is either slowed or completely interrupted. One common type of denial of service attack is SYN flooding. In a SYN flood attack, the final acknowledgement in the server's SYN-ACK response in the handshaking process is withheld. This causes the server to keep signaling until it eventually times out. What is needed is a solution which protects a web server from SYN flood attacks.
Additionally, even if a web switch isn't under attack, there may be situations where an individual source IP address is taking more than an appropriate share of the network resources. Even though the client may not have malicious intent, it can still result in a disruption in service. Therefore, what is also needed is a solution which prevents a source IP address from taking more than an appropriate share of system resources.
Transaction rate limiting is provided to monitor new connections. If the number of new connections requested by a particular client exceeds a predetermined threshold value calculated for a specific period of time, then the client may be frozen out for a configured period of time. By denying access for the configured period of time, the client is prevented from monopolizing a particular service. Additionally, if the client does have malicious intent, a denial of service attack will be thwarted. The denial of service may be accomplished without alerting the client. This may prevent a malicious client from attempting an assault via a different mechanism.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated into and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate one or more embodiments of the present invention and, together with the detailed description, serve to explain the principles and implementations of the invention.
In the drawings:
Embodiments of the present invention are described herein in the context of a system of computers, servers, and software. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the following detailed description of the present invention is illustrative only and is not intended to be in any way limiting. Other embodiments of the present invention will readily suggest themselves to such skilled persons having the benefit of this disclosure. Reference will now be made in detail to implementations of the present invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The same reference indicators will be used throughout the drawings and the following detailed description to refer to the same or like parts.
In the interest of clarity, not all of the routine features of the implementations described herein are shown and described. It will, of course, be appreciated that in the development of any such actual implementation, numerous implementation-specific decisions must be made in order to achieve the developer's specific goals, such as compliance with application- and business-related constraints, and that these specific goals will vary from one implementation to another and from one developer to another. Moreover, it will be appreciated that such a development effort might be complex and time-consuming, but would nevertheless be a routine undertaking of engineering for those of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of this disclosure.
In accordance with the present invention, the components, process steps, and/or data structures may be implemented using various types of operating systems, computing platforms, computer programs, and/or general purpose machines. In addition, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that devices of a less general purpose nature, such as hardwired devices, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like, may also be used without departing from the scope and spirit of the inventive concepts disclosed herein.
In accordance with a specific embodiment of the present invention, transaction rate limiting is provided to monitor new connections. If the number of new connections requested by a particular client exceeds a predetermined threshold value calculated for a specific period of time, then the client may be frozen out for a configured period of time. By denying access for the configured period of time, the client is prevented from monopolizing a particular service. Additionally, if the client does have malicious intent, a denial of service attack is thwarted.
In accordance with a specific embodiment of the present invention, no message is sent to the client indicating that access has been suspended. This may prevent a malicious client from attempting an assault via a different mechanism. In accordance with a specific embodiment of the present invention, the transaction rate limiting is applied on a per interface (port) or per service level. This allows any component to be protected from SYN flood attacks. In a specific embodiment of the present invention, the interface can be a physical port, virtual interface (1 to n ports) or trunk.
While embodiments and applications of this invention have been shown and described, it would be apparent to those skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure that many more modifications than mentioned above are possible without departing from the inventive concepts herein. The invention, therefore, is not to be restricted except in the spirit of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4926480 | Chaum | May 1990 | A |
5761507 | Govett | Jun 1998 | A |
5774660 | Brendel et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5956489 | San Andres et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6044260 | Eaton et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6075772 | Brown et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6088452 | Johnson et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6195680 | Goldszmidt et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6314465 | Paul et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6336133 | Morris et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6381642 | O'Donnell et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389448 | Primak et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6438652 | Jordan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6457061 | Bal et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6526448 | Blewett | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6587881 | Agarwal et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6597661 | Bonn | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6701415 | Hendren, III | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6763372 | Dani et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6851062 | Hartmann et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6857025 | Maruyama et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6883033 | Maruyama et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
7007092 | Peiffer | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7107609 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7131140 | O'Rourke et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
20010039585 | Primak et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042200 | Lamberton et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047415 | Skene et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020040400 | Masters | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020099831 | Tsunogai | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20030041146 | Davis et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20040024861 | Coughlin | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040162901 | Mangipudi et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076, dated Mar. 23, 2006. |
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073, dated Mar. 31, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073, filed May 3, 2002 (Co-pending and commonly assigned). |
Office action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073, mailed Jan. 29, 2007. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076, filed May 3, 2002 (Co-pending and commonly assigned). |
Office action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076, mailed Mar. 12, 2007. |
Office Action dated Sep. 20, 2005, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Office Action dated Aug. 16, 2007, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Office Action dated Jan. 10, 2008, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Office Action dated Sep. 12, 2008, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Office Action dated Apr. 27, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Office Action dated Jan. 5, 2010, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Office Action dated Sep. 11, 2007, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
Office Action dated Feb. 21, 2008, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
Office Action dated Mar. 31, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
Office Action dated Sep. 9, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
Office Action dated Jul. 13, 2005, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
Office Action dated Jul. 25, 2006, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 8, 2010, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,073. |
Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 28, 2010, U.S. Appl. No. 10/139,076. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/785,423, filed May 21, 2010. |